Morality Is Relative

[Lilly of the Valley]

What if you do? Lots of people throughout history HAVE felt that killing innocents is the right thing.


Yes, it is. I'll just say that at the most, what YOU BELIEVE some god has said is wrong.

So it's rt. just because they feel it is. Then a lot of people in jail should be set free because many of them felt it was rt. to kill folks for no reason and murder and steal and etc....

 

[quatona]

People go against rt. and wrong all the time, even w/ the assumption of absolute morality. That's just how people are, but there needs to be some standard as to what is rt. and what isn't or there can be chaos.

That´s why societies see the necessity of agreeing on certain standards, usually with quite some success.

But it wouldn't be wrong, so should they both or the person causing the inury get punished as criminals do today?

The consequences of breaking societal agreements are a completely different topic, imo.
My opinion concerning punishment is a bit exotic, so don´t let´s derail the thread by discussing it.
The given situation (in my country, and I think in yours, too): People who violate the agreements on right/wrong are punished.

 

[quatona]

So it's rt. just because they feel it is. Then a lot of people in jail should be set free because many of them felt it was rt. to kill folks for no reason and murder and steal and etc....

I do not see how one follows logically from the other.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I do not see how one follows logically from the other.

If your feelings decide what is rt. and wrong, then if you do something you feel is rt. you shouldn't get punished for it since morality is "relative" and based on feelings of the indv. Thus what you did you felt was rt. was rt. due to that.

 

[quatona]

If your feelings decide what is rt. and wrong, then if you do something you feel is rt. you shouldn't get punished for it since morality is "relative" and based on feelings of the indv. Thus what you did you felt was rt. was rt. due to that.

That would be one way of looking at it. If you feel that this is a necessary consequence, feel free to go ahead and promote it.

Another way of looking at it (and the one that seems to be the predominantly held currently):
As we have established, the lack of rules is likely to cause chaos. The vast majority of people is interested in there not being chaos. So they agree upon rules, and determine negative consequences for cases of violation.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay, so smaller issues that may not have governmental rules are meaningless?

 

[quatona]

It´s a bit like with the president. People disagree as to who is the best person to be president, and they agree upon a procedure to determine how a president is elected.
The idea whether one of the candidates is objectively the "right" person, doesn´t play a part in that.
We don´t say: "Because Lilly thinks that the candidate who lost the election is actually the right person, she should get him for president."
Same with what individuals think about right or wrong.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

It´s a bit like with the president. People disagree as to who is the best person to be president, and they agree upon a procedure to determine how a president is elected.
The idea whether one of the candidates is objectively the "right" person, doesn´t play a part in that.
We don´t say: "Because Lilly thinks that the candidate who lost the election is actually the right person, she should get him for president."
Same with what individuals think about right or wrong.

So whether it is rt. doesn't matter, just so that there is an agreement? I'm not sure I get this example fully.....

 

[quatona]

Okay, so smaller issues that may not have governmental rules are meaningless?

Well, you were the one talking about persons in prison and how they deserve to be free.
What do you mean - meaningless? Apparently considered not meaningful enough to put people in prison for it. Yet not necessarily meaningless. There are a lot of agreements in society that are not ruled by governmental laws, so apparently they are considered meaningful in one way or the other.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Well, you were the one talking about persons in prison and how they deserve to be free.
What do you mean - meaningless? Apparently considered not meaningful enough to put people in prison for it. Yet not necessarily meaningless. There are a lot of agreements in society that are not ruled by governmental laws, so apparently they are considered meaningful in one way or the other.

By meaningless I mean, it doesn't really matter if it is truly the appropriate thing done in the situation or if true justice is observed.

 

[quatona]

So whether it is rt. doesn't matter, just so that there is an agreement? I'm not sure I get this example fully.....

Yes, that´s what laws basically are. People elect persons who they feel represent their ideas on right/wrong, and they make the laws - simply speaking.
There are other models, too, but they seem to be out of fashion currently.

 

[Exist]

I only read the first and last page.

Here's my thoughts on morality:

Morality is relative; evil only exists in the eye of the Beholder (where else would it exist? Is it a ether substance floating around a murder scene? No, it only exists in perception). One person may view an act as evil, another will view is as noble. But, the human eye has evolved the same world wide, so our morals are pretty similiar. We all have the same basic moral codes (for the most part).

But you say God created us, therefore: morality is not relative. It still is. Since God is our creator, and knows what is best for us (which is what morality is all about), then we should follow his perception, even if it doesn't agree with ours. That's what they say, anyway.

Still relative, however, because Satan will view an act as evil, God will see it as just. Since there probably isn't a magical invisible substance called "Good" or "Evil", that means that evil exists in one's eye, which means that one thing will be evil from one perspective, good in another. It's relative.

Any flaws?

 

[quatona]

By meaningless I mean, it doesn't really matter if it is truly the appropriate thing done in the situation or if true justice is observed.

Experience shows that people do not always agree upon what´s right and wrong in every single case.
Hence they are making agreements (as in contracts).

We may like this situation or not - the problem is that the assumption of there being an "objective morality" doesn´t solve the problem. People won´t agree on what this "objective morality" means. Thus, objective morality without universal agreement will give us the very chaos that you initially claimed to be the problem.
Instead of holding individual ideas of right and wrong people will hold individual ideas of what "objective morality" says. Not really much of an improvement, pragmatically speaking.

Now, here on CF, we all know that you, Lilly, are the unfallible source when it comes to telling right from wrong. I am afraid, though, that we won´t succeed in convincing everybody else in the world of it.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Experience shows that people do not always agree upon what´s right and wrong in every single case.
Hence they are making agreements (as in contracts).

We may like this situation or not - the problem is that the assumption of there being an "objective morality" doesn´t solve the problem. People won´t agree on what this "objective morality" means. Thus, objective morality without universal agreement will give us the very chaos that you initially claimed to be the problem.
Instead of holding individual ideas of right and wrong people will hold individual ideas of what "objective morality" says. Not really much of an improvement, pragmatically speaking.

Now, here on CF, we all know that you, Lilly, are the unfallible source when it comes to telling right from wrong. I am afraid, though, that we won´t succeed in convincing everybody else in the world of it.

lol....I'm not unfallible, but God sure is and that's who I'm going by.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I only read the first and last page.

Here's my thoughts on morality:

Morality is relative; evil only exists in the eye of the Beholder (where else would it exist? Is it a ether substance floating around a murder scene? No, it only exists in perception). One person may view an act as evil, another will view is as noble. But, the human eye has evolved the same world wide, so our morals are pretty similiar. We all have the same basic moral codes (for the most part).

But you say God created us, therefore: morality is not relative. It still is. Since God is our creator, and knows what is best for us (which is what morality is all about), then we should follow his perception, even if it doesn't agree with ours. That's what they say, anyway.

Still relative, however, because Satan will view an act as evil, God will see it as just. Since there probably isn't a magical invisible substance called "Good" or "Evil", that means that evil exists in one's eye, which means that one thing will be evil from one perspective, good in another. It's relative.

Any flaws?

Actually Satan knows that what God does is good, but he hates good, thus it is awful to him since he is evil.

And w/ God, it isn't really how God percieves it, but how it is, since God is higher, we won't always see it the same way and thus it may seem different than how it really is.

 

[quatona]

lol....I'm not unfallible, but God sure is and that's who I'm going by.

Well, everybody has his own ideas about that. One of the reasons why morality is factually not objective.
I personally am glad that I do not have to accept all those partly contradicting supposedly objective moralities that people all around the world ascribe to their Gods they believe in.
I´m off to bed.
G´night Lilly.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

People go against rt. and wrong all the time, even w/ the assumption of absolute morality. That's just how people are, but there needs to be some standard as to what is rt. and what isn't or there can be chaos.

No, there needs to be some standard as to what is PERMITTED and what isn't. Morality need have nothing to do with it. There are a number of other reasons on which to base whether or not something is permitted. This is pretty obvious from the fact that a large number of activities felt to be morally wrong by the majority are nevertheless legal.

So it's rt. just because they feel it is.

No, it's neither right or wrong, because those labels are just other words for 'what someone feels okay about'.

Then a lot of people in jail should be set free because many of them felt it was rt. to kill folks for no reason and murder and steal and etc....

See above. Morality need have nothing to do with the law.

If your feelings decide what is rt. and wrong, then if you do something you feel is rt. you shouldn't get punished for it since morality is "relative" and based on feelings of the indv. Thus what you did you felt was rt. was rt. due to that.

Whether it was right or wrong, or who feels either way, is not relevant to whether or not you should be punished for it. Morality of an action doesn't come into the issue of legality.

lol....I'm not unfallible, but God sure is and that's who I'm going by.

But you're not. You can't. At best you go on YOUR (fallible, by your own admission) interpretation of what God wants. And this is an issue on which, throughout history, there has been massive disagreement, even among people who agree about god. Even today, the world's Christians can't agree on what is and isn't what God wants. That's why "because God wants it" is such a bad basis for law (or morality). Because it's never "what God wants", it can only be "what *I* believe God wants".

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

No, there needs to be some standard as to what is PERMITTED and what isn't. Morality need have nothing to do with it. There are a number of other reasons on which to base whether or not something is permitted. This is pretty obvious from the fact that a large number of activities felt to be morally wrong by the majority are nevertheless legal.


No, it's neither right or wrong, because those labels are just other words for 'what someone feels okay about'.


See above. Morality need have nothing to do with the law.


Whether it was right or wrong, or who feels either way, is not relevant to whether or not you should be punished for it. Morality of an action doesn't come into the issue of legality.


But you're not. You can't. At best you go on YOUR (fallible, by your own admission) interpretation of what God wants. And this is an issue on which, throughout history, there has been massive disagreement, even among people who agree about god. Even today, the world's Christians can't agree on what is and isn't what God wants. That's why "because God wants it" is such a bad basis for law (or morality). Because it's never "what God wants", it can only be "what *I* believe God wants".

So basically you are saying there isn't rt. or wrong and just do what you feel?

That's another debate not for this thread and I rather not waste time w/ that....Thank you.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

So basically you are saying there isn't rt. or wrong and just do what you feel?

Of course.

That's another debate not for this thread and I rather not waste time w/ that....Thank you.

That's exactly what this entire thread is about.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay...since in your opinion there isn't any rt. or wrong, then why are there laws defining rt. and wrong apart from preventing chaos?